Hockey Widow wrote:I know, I know, I know. I have to believe he is trying but it is so frustrating.

Quality centre's don't grow on trees and teams don't trade them away and if they do trade them, you have to give up a helluva lot more than just a 34 year old goalie with a big contract. I'm sorry but Mason Raymond or Higgins package with Luongo ain't getting us a good top young centre.

Plus, I don't see how a Derek Roy type makes us a cup contender, this team has many holes to plug other than the centre ice position.

All of this centre talk should explain why a Getzalf and O'Reilly got them Krazy contracts

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Strangelove wrote:The PP is the problem and that shakes down to a coaching problem.

The struggling PP has likely cost the Canucks a few points this season, which is the difference between 3rd in the Conference and 10th.

The coaches are 100% responsilbe for who they put on the ice, but how much responsibilty do they take for said players not executing? How much are the players sticking to a coach diagram vs just using their instincts and doing their thing? I have no idea.

The 1-2-2 PP formation is not working (and tedius to watch). IMO, without the threat of Kesler out there doing his best Stamkos impression the Sedins need to be more mobile with and without the puck, and there also needs to be more mobility in the offensive zone from one of the Dmen.

I'd like to see the a first unit of the Sedins, Burrows, Bieksa, and Garrison. Garrison obviously has a rocket (and a great one-timer), and what Bieksa may slightly lack in terms of a shot from the point, he makes up for with his ability to rush the puck up ice, hold the line, and jump into the play to accept a cross ice pass (or rebound) from the opposite wing.

Of course acquiring a 2nd/3rd line C would be great, but getting the PP going is probably the easiest way the Canucks can improve their game. The coaches need to try some new combinations / formations, but the players need to start finishing as well.

If Gillis has looked at the team, realized that some pieces are leaving with the new cap, and realized that his tradable assets that will bring good returns all have NTCs, and sees the need for a center, and also sees that the Sedins are going to be pricey next time and also declining......then he's got a brain at least.

Now IF he is considering this and has also considered that the core of this team still has it in them to compete for a few more years, and has drawn up a gameplan to shit the bed this year, get a top pick through standings and lottery and trade, and then come back next year with a new coach and some fresh faces that include a McKinnon or a Drouin......in that case I don't want to make the playoffs this year.

The fact that it is happening on EVERY SINGLE POWER PLAY should be an indication of this is how the coaching staff wants the players to exit the zone. Next thing we'll see is a defender blocking that drop pass and we'll be hearing AV talk about how other teams are adjusting and making it difficult for the Canucks to attack.

Now you have AV saying:

Ann Schmaltz ‏@annschmaltzAV "I have to be able to come in here after tonight's game and say my goaltender was better than their goaltender." #Canucks

That's it coach, point the finger at the the goaltending coach. That's the reason your team is losing games, because the goalies can't get shutouts more often or skate up the ice and get a shot on net.

vic wrote:The fact that it is happening on EVERY SINGLE POWER PLAY should be an indication of this is how the coaching staff wants the players to exit the zone. Next thing we'll see is a defender blocking that drop pass and we'll be hearing AV talk about how other teams are adjusting and making it difficult for the Canucks to attack.

They use this play in order to gain the offensive zone on the PP, which isn't the issue with the powerplay.

The drop pass in the neutral zone is actually fairly effective, so much so that I've seen several other teams doing the same thing. The puck carrier draws one of the forwards creating a hole, he then stops (the forward does a well) and the supporting Canuck (usually a Sedin) can gain the zone much easier.

The problem with the Canucks powerplay isn't gaining the zone or even setting up on the outside, it's the complete lack of creativeness in order to draw the defenders out of their positions and produce quality scoring chances.

They need to use Garrison's bomb more often, and don't simply set him up for a one timer from the blue line, they need to get him one timing shots from the top of the circles. It's going to be much easier for him to hit the net and impossible for the goalie to control a rebound.

Then when the defending forwards cheat to take Garrison's shot away it will likely opening up odd man advantages down low where the Sedins are outstanding when they have time and space.

From my perspective the first PP should be the Sedins with Kassian and Bieksa and Garrison on the point.

Yes I do blame the coaching for our lack of PP success and they need to figure it out now. Hell, let the Sedins run a practice and get their input on what they would like to see. Hank is the captain for a reason, time to start working more with the players instead of simply telling them what to do.

Aaronp18 wrote:They use this play in order to gain the offensive zone on the PP, which isn't the issue with the powerplay.

The drop pass in the neutral zone is actually fairly effective, so much so that I've seen several other teams doing the same thing.

Didn't LA score two shorthanded goals in the first round of the playoffs last year off of our drop pass? I agree that it can be effective, but they use if every single powerplay. It points to a lack of creativity or ability to adjust. If LA could figure it out and create shorthanded breakaways, couldn't other teams follow suit?

Completely agree with the rest of your post. We have two of the most creative playmakers in the league, who are not doing creative things, and to me that points to coaching and confidence. The coaching can be changed up, and the confidence can be regained, but I don't see how trying the same thing over and over again without success is logical.

herb wrote:Didn't LA score two shorthanded goals in the first round of the playoffs last year off of our drop pass? I agree that it can be effective, but they use if every single powerplay. It points to a lack of creativity or ability to adjust. If LA could figure it out and create shorthanded breakaways, couldn't other teams follow suit?

Possibly.

It does require some responsibility from the puck carrier to read what that checking forward is doing. If he's trying to take away blueline access then the drop pass is the way to go, however if he starts cheating to take away that drop pass at all the puck carrier needs to enter the zone himself by dumping the puck in and chasing or simply gaining the line.

You're right, it can't just be automatic otherwise we might as well tell the other team what we're doing.

When you're the best team in the league and a contender for several years straight teams will focus on ways to beat you. This is when new ideas need to be generated either from the coaching staff or the players themselves. It's not happening, and evidently we need new blood somewhere to introduce some new plays and approaches to the game.

herb wrote:Didn't LA score two shorthanded goals in the first round of the playoffs last year off of our drop pass? I agree that it can be effective, but they use if every single powerplay. It points to a lack of creativity or ability to adjust. If LA could figure it out and create shorthanded breakaways, couldn't other teams follow suit?

Possibly.

It does require some responsibility from the puck carrier to read what that checking forward is doing. If he's trying to take away blueline access then the drop pass is the way to go, however if he starts cheating to take away that drop pass at all the puck carrier needs to enter the zone himself by dumping the puck in and chasing or simply gaining the line.

That is one of the biggest problems I have with Edler. He doesn't read and react quick enough to warrant all the accolades and praise he gets from talking heads and management. He just goes out and follows the gameplan on the breakout and offense, regardless of what he see's from the opposing defense. On defense it's like he can't decide who he is going to be as a player, is he a physical bruising checker that flattens rushing forwards (we all know he can be), or is he a safe, stay home, coverage guy who takes away lanes and and blocks shots.....

Creativity goes out the window for this team after the Sedins, Burrows, Bieksa, and I'm actually think Raymond now too. Ballard and Garrison both have it in them to think outside the box, but the coaching staff seems to prefer that they play structured hockey that doesn't surprise the limited offensive prowess of the guys behind the bench.

Salo was some serious glue back there. He's smart. Big shot. Postionally sound. Made the right read and the right pass at the right time. Had opposing PK's shitting their pants when he wound up for a shot. Fought through almost every injury a player can have and came back just as good as ever (maybe a bit slower in his last season or two after the achilles tear). He moved the puck very well at the point too, something this team really misses as only Juice is even remotely adept in this department amongst our point men. The loss of Sami on the PP means that we only have one true PP QB (Hank) and he has to run it from half-boards because he's not a shooter by any stretch of the imagination.

Ann Schmaltz ‏@annschmaltzAV "I have to be able to come in here after tonight's game and say my goaltender was better than their goaltender." #Canucks

That's it coach, point the finger at the the goaltending coach. That's the reason your team is losing games, because the goalies can't get shutouts more often or skate up the ice and get a shot on net.

They've been held to 2 goals or less in 8 of their past 10 games (3-5-2 with a pathetic 22 GF). Not really sure how you're supposed to win, especially when you have as many mistake-prone d-men as the Canucks do...

Ann Schmaltz ‏@annschmaltzAV "I have to be able to come in here after tonight's game and say my goaltender was better than their goaltender." #Canucks

That's it coach, point the finger at the the goaltending coach. That's the reason your team is losing games, because the goalies can't get shutouts more often or skate up the ice and get a shot on net.

They've been held to 2 goals or less in 8 of their past 10 games (3-5-2 with a pathetic 22 GF). Not really sure how you're supposed to win, especially when you have as many mistake-prone d-men as the Canucks do...

I don't think the goaltending is Vancouvers (biggest) issue.

Goaltending is the least of this team's concerns right now.

When a coach is pointing the finger everywhere but where the problems really are I think it's time to ask the coach to move on.

I didn't ever think AV would end up going out this way, figured it would be more classy and professional than hanging the strongest part of his team out as a scapegoat.

Meds wrote:Goaltending is the least of this team's concerns right now.

The goaltending may not be the biggest issue but it is far from the least of their concerns. The goaltender duo that many consider one of the best in the league are sitting at #22 and #29 in Save%. Neither of them has been nearly as good as they can be. They've both underperformed and they deserve their share of the blame for the position the team is in.

Meds wrote:I didn't ever think AV would end up going out this way, figured it would be more classy and professional than hanging the strongest part of his team out as a scapegoat.

Did you watch the interview? I could see how the quote could make you think he was hanging his goalies out to dry but I didn't take it that way at all when watching it. He was basically listing some things that needed to happen for them to win tonight and one of them was that his goalie needed to be better than the goalie at the other end of the rink. A pretty accurate and standard comment to the press. The problem is that the team is losing right now so everything anyone says is going to be heavily scrutinized.

Meds wrote:Creativity goes out the window for this team after the Sedins, Burrows, Bieksa, and I'm actually think Raymond now too. Ballard and Garrison both have it in them to think outside the box, but the coaching staff seems to prefer that they play structured hockey that doesn't surprise the limited offensive prowess of the guys behind the bench.

Agree with all but the inclusion of Raymond.

Well said Meds, I have been thinking along the same lines...

Seems to me AV stifles creativity too much in favour of “sticking to the system”.

The problem with “sticking to the system” too much is you can become too predictable.

Other teams seem to have a pretty good idea of what we’re going to do at any given point.

Even before we do it.

So yeah, they're onto us.

AV’s system seems to be too rigid as well.

System play is great of course but it must allow for some individual creativity and in-game tweaking.

In short: AV's system seems outdated, inflexible, and anti-spontaneous.